[Closed] Tuition fees

Mainly because we can't afford it. It'd be nice if we could, but it's not anywhere near as important as improving schools and hospitals (maybe some more riot police 😀 )

viz:

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/the-real-issue-the-size-the-state

viz:

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/the-real-issue-the-size-the-state

Well if students are being charged for the same education I got for 'free', then my taxes won't go towards paying for their education. The taxes we pay now pay for things now, rather than in the past, what have been paid for by people then. I spose.

Begs the question, where will the bit of our taxes what would've bin spent on education end up?

Hmm...

The real issue affecting the less well off isn't tuition fees, it's the scrapping of EMA. Without that there's not much chance of my kids having the chance of running up huge debts at university or getting A levels or getting other educational training.

As for jobs where a degree IS essential, then go to university and get that degree.

The other problem here is that a lot of jobs, especially in the public sector, have had a university degree "invented" as a passport to the job.

Forestry, twenty years ago, you needed a 3 year BTEC ND sandwich , now the "minimum qualification" is a degree - do we think that the people coming out from degrees are any more able at the job? the people I know in the field say less so, as there's a lot of theoretical book learning and a paucity of practical experience?

Nursing? t'was only fairly recently that we introduced university degrees, are nurses now any more capable than before? many would say less so, as they've not had to "get their hands dirty" to the same extent whilst learning

We've already seen degree courses crop up for potential police officers, what's next, a degree in plumbing instead of time served apprenticeships?

we have a serious problem about separating thinking from doing. We're so hung up on dualism that we can't stop ourselves dualising. And when we do that, we have to label one as being "better" "superior", and the other as being "worse" "lower".

"Thinking" is seen to be upper, worthy of university status, and "doing" is not only "lower" but unworthy of being taught - So we then have to invent degrees that theoretically qualify people to "do" a job, but in reality only teach them to think about it.

The result that as a society we end up with shit loads of "thinkers" but a complete lack of "doers" - which is why we then have to ship all our manufacturing jobs to china, as jobs like that are "beneath" someone who's done a degree.

Why shouldn't we, a a 'Society', be prepared to support each other more? Isn't that an ultimately good thing?
Do we not ultimately all benefit?

It depends if you think those studying what many would consider as "soft" degrees enrich society. Or those that graduate then take relatively low paying jobs that dont require any of the skills they have learned over the previous 3 yrs contribute to "society", or those that graduate then go on to do additional degress and PG study, how many of them never seem to exit the world of academia? I know of a few!!!

Since when did a degree become vocational training?

My point was in reply to someone who claimed that without a degree there would be no teachers, lawyers, doctor etc where apparently having a degree is a prerequisite for that profession so in a sense, certain degrees have become vocational.

My view is that you go to university to learn how to learn. The educated mind, like an exercised muscle, is a more capable and healthy mind.

Exactly! But to really benefit society and make us all better off, this should be done at school which would effect far more people.

Ha ha, and no, that spelling mistake was not meant to be ironic - I'm typing on an iPhone whilst in a truck with what seems like no suspension, damn predictive text!

we have a serious problem about separating thinking from doing. We're so hung up on dualism that we can't stop ourselves dualising. And when we do that, we have to label one as being "better" "superior", and the other as being "worse" "lower".

"Thinking" is seen to be upper, worthy of university status, and "doing" is not only "lower" but unworthy of being taught - So we then have to invent degrees that theoretically qualify people to "do" a job, but in reality only teach them to think about it.

The result that as a society we end up with shit loads of "thinkers" but a complete lack of "doers" - which is why we then have to ship all our manufacturing jobs to china, as jobs like that are "beneath" someone who's done a degree.

I think thats a good argument

Well said Zulu-Eleven.

Woppit - the usual load of cant. Takes no account for the fact that in a recession GDP falls and benefit payments rise so in a recession % of gdp in state spending will always rise unless you go for draconian cuts which makes trhe recession worse.

Compare us to Germany - where public spending is higher but you still have to pay for your health insurance on top of your taxes.

Zulu - don't let facts get in the way of your rant. On nursing you clearly know half of naff all. There is a massive improvement in the understanding and the use of evidence based practice.

Of course those who long for an imaginary past of nurses as Drs handmaidens and in stockings are sorry to see this.

we have a serious problem about separating thinking from doing. We're so hung up on dualism that we can't stop ourselves dualising. And when we do that, we have to label one as being "better" "superior", and the other as being "worse" "lower".

I think that's a very good point actually. I think they key to this is to make access to Higher Education available to all regardless of economics, so that having a degree isn't seen as a 'luxury item', or the Social Divider. I believe people should be educated to a standard of which they are capable. And I believe that the cost of this should be borne by the society which benefits from more educated minds.

The father of a mate of min was once arguing about his son going to university, in the pub with some other blokes.

[i]'What's he wanna go an do all that poncy stuff for? Why can't he get a proper job? What's he gonna do when he's finished?'

'Don't matter what he does; could be a lorry driver, could be a brickie, could be a doctor. What matters is that he gets a decent education, cos without one, then he'll probbly end up having to scrape a living like us lot. If he gets an eduction, then hopefully he'll have options what we never had'.
[/i]
Best argument for education I think I've ever heard.

grumm - Member
Csb your faith in market forces is touching but has very little basis in reality. And backhander, yet again, is science and engineering the only thing of value to society?

OK Grumm here's an poorly evidenced example. (Not sure market forces is the correct term, which is why I used 'market forces'. Perhaps democratic forces is a better term?)

Local Authority can't find any graduate social workers because there are none coming through the system (because everone is on a law course). Electorate are asking for social care to be a top priority locally. So Local Authority are forced to raise the salary offered to compete with other authorities in attracting the few candidates that are coming through the system. Social work becomes a better paid career and thus more attractive degree option.

Not sure how reactive the system can be.

a degree in plumbing

From the amount they charge, I'd expect them to be PhD graduates.

And backhander, yet again, is science and engineering the only thing of value to society?

Zulu - don't let facts get in the way of your rant. On nursing you clearly know half of naff all. There is a massive improvement in the understanding and the use of evidence based practice.

But some would point you towards a massive increase in infection rates due to poor hygiene standards... Family friends who "cut their teeth" on the wards under matron shake their heads in shame at the hygiene and bedside standards of supposedly qualified "shake and bake" nurses!

I long to see TJ in stockings.

But then, I've not been very well lately...

Nurse!

I think they key to this is to make access to Higher Education available to all regardless of economics, so that having a degree isn't seen as a 'luxury item'. I believe people should be educated to a standard of which they are capable

Arent they two potentially mutually exclusive points? If people are to be educated to "a standard of which they are capable" then for the vast majority vocational studies would be most appropriate and a degree may be superfluous.
If access is available to all then who would bear the cost and how exactly would society benefit from a glut of graduates with degrees in surfing for example?

Elfin

I think they key to this is to make access to Higher Education available to all regardless of economics

Why do we think that "Higher" education is so much better than "medium" or "lower" education?

the important factor is whether education fulfills our needs, both as individuals or as a society - the argument against Degree courses as currently being pushed towards 50% of the population is that they don't do that!

Nurses hygiene is far better than it ever was. Fact. HAI is down to multiple factors none of which are nurses hygiene

As someone who has worked in nursing over this time modern nurses are incomparably better educated and it shows. Yes they are not the same and are not rained to do things by rote but to work on evidence based practice.

Of course many old-fashioned folk wail for the days of deference and unquestioning nurses but those days have gone,. This is the 21st century

Ignorance and cant from you as ever

TJ - you are the only nurse I know (and I know quite a few) who has anything good to say about the drive to have degree educated nurses.

Begs the question, where will the bit of our taxes what would've bin spent on education end up?

Already been sent to Irish bankers, no?

BTW <pedant>"begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it means</pedant>

TJ - if you think nursing is better these days I suggest you don't bump into my sister who's just come out of hospital. Nil by mouth, drip ran out, nobody bothered to change it for days, ignoring women in next bed with problems with blood clot etc. etc

Sister-in-law is a nurse and she is horrified at nurses attitudes these days.

* not that I'm painting all nurses to be bad and I'm sure you look lovely in your nurses outfit 😉

Druidh - unfortunately in Edinburgh we have the Heriot watt trained nurses - its a very poor quality course.

I trained under the old style training. It was narrower and did not teach evidence based practice. There are flaws in the currant set up for sure - but the move towards a nursing workforce trained to a much higher standard is good.

Too many nurses want to hark back to a " good old days" that actually never existed.

Not just Edinburgh-based nurses TJ, although I'm sure there's a certain amount of rose-tinted glasses involved too.

Last time I was in hospital (following Avocadogate), I was treated by very friendly, professional staff who were intelligent and seemed well-educated. It was an experience made less unpleasant by well-trained hardworking staff.

Druidh - one of the issues is that because the system now teaches on a much wider range of areas that some stuff is in less depth. So some old-fashioned nurses decry this lack of depth not seeing the increased range. The lack of knowledge that you used to be able to qualify with was astounding and dangerous. You were not taught to think at all - it was all done by rote and this is how we do it because this is how we do it.

The newer training produces nurses with a differing skill set from the old apprentaship style training. Some folk only see what they have not got rather than what they have got instead.

The major flaw is there is no place for the less academic nurses - the old enrolled nurse. That is a pity

Nursing as profession is very very conservative. This is why the resistance to better trained nurses.

To be fair it's often not the nurses fault. The midwife pretty much told be to put in a written complaint as it would highlight their lack of staff on the ward rather than the quality of care from individuals.

Do all you right wing fan boys really think that people are going to uni to have a larf, muck about and party then leave with a degree that isn't any use?

There are a minority that are in for a free ride, but that's the same in society as a whole (people claiming benefits unlawfully etc.). Young people will go out and party whether they're at university or not- thinking back to Huddersfield town centre on any night other than a Wednesday and it's awash with young people who aren't students, who have jobs and are just out to get lashed and then go home. Even an average 2:1 student has to work their arse off to get there- I know I've not been to the pub for about 3 weeks. Similarly I've not ridden my bike for 2 weeks. I worked out I did an 80 hour week last week. While that is a bit of an exception, it certainly isn't the free ride a lot of you seem to think it is.

The majority of degrees are of high value to society. Chemistry for example- do you want the person mucking about with chemicals to go in your food, run your car on, power your batteries to not have as complete a knowledge of what they're doing as possible? Without having been taught all these things in a controlled environment first and having as much understanding as possible about what reacts with what there'd be an awful lot of mistakes.

Take what I do, Geology. If one of the guys examining the strength of the ground under a new motorway hasn't been trained properly then there will an awful lot to answer for if your motorway subsides because he'd just been fired into the job without proper knowledge of what he's doing. You'd also have people drilling for oil willy-nilly and wasting their time and money. Imagine what wasted time and money in an oil company would do to the price you pay for oil... And it's not like we spend 90% of our time sat in lectures thinking about geology. In fact, it's probably the opposite- I spend 2 hours in a week in a lecture, and then the remainder of the week is spent doing various practicals. Things like fieldwork, lab analysis, mapping, presenting and teaching.

Even arts degrees have value. You need a culturally rich society to keep your citizens happy and in a nice environment. Things like Philosophy are very important- for example, a philosophy student who's had a degree to understand all the ins and outs of ethics and morals can help decides ethics codes for the NHS without being affected by a medical background.

It's not as if the majority of students are doing things like David Beckham studies- most are doing things that are very important to things in your every day life and that you'd almost certainly struggle without.

There's no real difference between a degree in a vocational subject and some other vocational qualification.

Training just got renamed, that's all, and shuffled about a bit.

Molgrips - utter bullshine.

I did old style vocational nurse training and much later upgraded to a degree, The difference is huge. Amongst other things I was taught how to access, read and interpret research which is a qualitative difference from being told " we do it this was because thats the way we do it"

Well said SpokesCycles.

SpokesCycles - Member
Do all you right wing fan boys really think that people are going to uni to have a larf, muck about and party then leave with a degree that isn't any use?

Pass / Completion rates would imply its far greater than a minority

Spokescycles, you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it.

Last time I was in hospital (following Avocadogate)

Rectal insertion ?

Backhander- since you will directly benefit, every single minute of every single day, from the work of someone with a university degree, I think you should have to put up a small amount of your tax money to help fund that. It's also a very small amount of money, and universities give an awful lot back to society (like I say, £1 of input generates £7.50 for the community).

Backhander; I don't [i]want[/i] to pay for Britain to have such an unnecessarily massive military, nuclear weapons etc, but I don't have a choice, do I?

So stop moaning about 'I don't want to pay for this and that which I can't see a direct benefit to myself from', because that's just selfish and blinkered.

The exact same way that non-graduates will benefit peoples lives every single day? What do they get?

I do think its quite legitimate to look at university funding and to discuss alternatives. Clearly full grants that were viable when 5% of the population went to uni is not viable when 50% do.

I think it is right that students should contribute. I do however think that running up huge debts is not the answer.

Mrs TJ got a degree in law when grants coved most of the cost of uni. She has spent the 30 yrs since doing poor law on lowish salaries. She has undoubtedly done good for society as a result of having a degree. She would not have gone to uni if it meant a huge debt - she was brought up to live within her means. Her family would not have been able to support her at all.

There is no doubt that having to run up huge debt to gain a degree puts off people from lower income families - thus reducing social mobility

Is a small graduate tax fairer?

Spokescycles - Should society pay for those skills your developing (through subsidy of the learning) or should the private sector oil company that will use you to increase their profit (through the wages they'll pay you)?

We need to get better at deciding what we subsidise as a society, whether that's cancer drugs, education, social housing, the arts....

[i]you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it. [/i]

Just pretend your taxes go on all the other stuff; tax breaks for industry, that kind of thing...

Since, statistically, they'd have a lower wage they'll get increased tax credits/income based benefits.

Why should I fund that when I got a degree to get a higher income?

(This is, obviously, not my viewpoint, but it might put things into backhander's mindset).

[i]should the private sector oil company that will use you to increase their profit [/i]

They would pay if they didn't avoid tax wouldn't they?

Anyone know how universities are funded in other countries? I should ask my sister as my nephew is at uni in Amsterdam.

IIRC USA is that you pay for everything as you go - but scholarships are available for lots of stuff and there are jobs on campus for people who need to work to get thru but I know no detail

anyone?

Since, statistically, they'd have a lower wage they'll get increased tax credits/income based benefits.

i heard a tory mp say the other day that its all labours fault for introducing tuitition fees in the first place. which didnt quite make sense because surely if you disagreed with them being implemented, you'd get rid of them, not put them up!

toppers3933 - Member
i heard a tory mp say the other day that its all labours fault for introducing tuitition fees in the first place. which didnt quite make sense because surely if you disagreed with them being implemented, you'd get rid of them, not put them up!

And if you disagreed with them going up, you'd promise to bring them back down if/when you got back into power?

The woman was saying last night that the best universities charge the most. There are scholarships but they aren't going to be available to many people. I know one of her friends has one, and has got into Duke with it, but she is the exception. A top Ivy league school charges $50,000 a year. Upfront, no loans, funded by parent's savings.

Result is the best and brightest are often not given places while someone not as good but with the funds can go. So you end up with people who aren't the best getting degrees. This is my main issue with the new system- poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt. So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

One benefit of America's system is it's possible for a top American student to come to the UK and pay £10-15,000 a year, much less than they'd pay at home, get a better education and as a result they fund the British university they go to, reducing governmental input significantly.

whoops - double post

Dave - Moderator

They would pay if they didn't avoid tax wouldn't they?

Dave, they'll argue that they can only pay the high wages because they avoid paying the overly high taxes. Paying taxes would mean they're paying for stuff that doesn't directly benefit them, unlike the wages of staff which obviously does.

As a non-shareholder I'd prefer them to pay tax to society, but lower wages to individuals. I suspect I'm not one of Camerons target voters though.

Rectal insertion ?

Heh! No, I'm not a Tory!!

Can you imagine though? 😯

[i]"So what seems to be the problem, sir?"

"It appears I have a fruit that is popular in savoury dishes, lodged in my rectum, nurse."

"And how did said fruit come to be lodged in your back passage?"

"Erm..."[/i]

Spokescycles, you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it.

To quote the old slogan: if you think education is expensive, try the price of ignorance.

surely less people with a degree would increase the value of said degree. im not sure higher tuition fees is the way forward, but every youth and his dog seems to think that going to university is the future. it just seems like the fashionable thing to do.

IIRC USA is that you pay for everything as you go - but scholarships are available for lots of stuff and there are jobs on campus for people who need to work to get thru but I know no detail

There are scholarships for US universities but they are in short supply. Universities are subject to the market, which means that the academically good ones cost tons of money and poor people have no chance if they don't get one of the highly competed for scholarships; and if you are not so well off you end up at a local community college.

There are jobs on campus but no more so than anywhere else. Most people have to work, many people do a full time job or two part time ones at the same time as studying. Because of this it can take four or five years to get through all the modules you need. My sister in law has a managerial job at a care home full time at the same time as putting almost all her money and spare time into a degree at a local college. It's a pretty hard life and she is extremely hard up.

"And how did said fruit come to be lodged in your back passage?"

Dave promised he was using KY

druidh, yeah and then welch on it when the time comes. genius. talk about betrayal. but hey, he must be the best politician in the world, because so many people fell for it.

Hows about we keep the tuition fees, reduce the grants given to universities even further, and push the public funding money towards the OU?

I'd put it to you that since its inception, the OU has done far more to open the advantages of a degree level education to those otherwise unable to attain one than all the other Uni's put together, and is one of the greatest examples of driving social mobility amongst the masses ever seen in the western world!

I just did a bit of googling to try to answer my own question about how universities are funded in other countries..

Germany is putting more money into universities.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090618200051988

Looks like germany has a similar systenm to ours but fees are much lower and some grants are available as well as loans

No detail tho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Germany

SpokesCycles - Member

... my main issue with the new system - poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt...

i understand that debt is scary, but yes, it [i]is[/i] viable for a 'poor' person to rack up the same debt as a 'rich' person, because the rate of repayment is entirely dependent upon their income when they start earning.

if the poor person stays poor once they graduate, then they'll make little or no repayments.

you don't need a penny to your name, and you can still go to the most expensive university. and borrow a load of money on top of the fees to spend on food, rent, bikes, etc.

and if you don't earn very much afterwards, then you don't have to pay it back, not a penny.

and the debt is cancelled after 30 years.

graduates at our place get paid about £22k - they'll pay back about £8/month. compared to £60/month under the old system that no-one complained about.

toppers3933 - Member
druidh, yeah and then welch on it when the time comes. genius. talk about betrayal. but hey, he must be the best politician in the world, because so many people fell for it.

Ed Miliband hardly qualifies for "best politician in the world".

"I'd put it to you that since its inception, the OU has done far more to open the advantages of a degree level education to those otherwise unable to attain one than all the other Uni's put together, and is one of the greatest examples of driving social mobility amongst the masses ever seen in the western world"

I'd agree with that. It does great work.

Synposis?

i understand that debt is scary, but yes, it is viable for a 'poor' person to rack up the same debt as a 'rich' person, because the rate of repayment is entirely dependent upon their financial situation when they start earning.

The point is that rich parents will contribute more money, so it's far more likely that a poor person will end up with much more debt than a rich one. So even if they both end up earning doing the exact same jobs, the poor person is disadvantaged. Although this situation is not restricted to higher education. The worry is that it will DETER more poor people, because they know that Mummy and Daddy can't help them out, or bail them out if needed when they are starting out in life.

and how is that different to the system we had last week that no-one complained about?

The amounts involved are higher.

I don't care about the funding, I care about the amount of money involved but much much more I care about the fact that it will lead to different universities charging different amounts.

I'd be interested to hear the real reasons why they've changed their views.

10 Downing Street meeting room last week.
Knock on Door.
David Cameron (DC): Come in
Door opens in walks (insert Lib Dem MP): Good afternoon Mr Cameron Sir
DC: Afternoon
Lib Dem MP(LDMP): Good afternoon Mr Clegg Sir
Nick Clegg(NC) Good afternoon, thank you for coming. You know why we asked to see you?
LDMP: I presume it’s about the Fees Vote? You know I’m going honour the election pledge and vote against it.
DC: No, no, no, not at all, of course we both respect your principles and you can vote as you choose.
LDMP: Excuse me?
NC: Like Dave says it’s not about the vote. We like you.
LDMP: You like me?
DC: Yes, we like you and think you could have a bright political future…
NC: Yes.Don’t you think it would be a waste if you spent years as a Back Bencher?
DC: ..dealing with constituency pensioners, NHS complaints, although I’ve..er we have some ideas about that…
LDMP: but I like serving my constituency, helping people…
NC: …the Conservative gov, err.. Coalition Government will need bright young things like you to chair committees, and panels….
DC: Why don’t you sit down, take the weight off your feet, use that seat by the cabinet over there…..
LDMP: I’m sorry, what cabinet? Oh I see….. !
NC: I thought you would…
DC: Why not come and see us again when we’re not so busy..
NC: …after the fees vote perhaps?
DC: That will be all…for now.
LDMP exits and closes door. Takes out mobile phone and dials.
Voice on telephone: Hello Mrs Lib Dem MP..
LDMP: Hi , listen dear, you know that house you fancied…
Mrs LDMP: Yes, the one you said we couldn’t afford on your MP’s salary..?
LDMP: Yes, well that might change……
Back in the meeting Room
DC: Well Nick, I think he got the picture..
NC: yes Dave, only another 20 to go…
DC: ....and 20 more promises to break..
NC:... I'm used to that!
DC&NC: Ha, ha, ha.....

and how is that different to the system we had last week that no-one complained about?

a) lots of people did complain about it - the Lib Dems suggested they might scrap fees altogether I believe
b) the fees are now potentially 3 times higher

This is my main issue with the new system- poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt. So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

the student loan debt in't a conventional debt, it is in essence a differed income related tax which is time limitedand doesn't ick in until you are close to natioanl average income

if the kid can't work that out they aren't bright enough to go in he first place

I saw the Simon Hughes interview where he said the new sytem was a vast improvement on the current one, more progressive, lower cost to the student, better incentives for those from a really poor family(free school meals qualifiers), asked what was his problem, it was essentially that he had stupidly signed a statement he shouldn't have

my understanding is that you can't "pay up front" which means all the potential bankers are trapped in the system and they are the people who will be subsidising the rest due to the overpayments they will be liable to.

The point is that rich parents will contribute more money, so it's far more likely that a poor person will end up with much more debt than a rich one. So even if they both end up earning doing the exact same jobs, the poor person is disadvantaged. Although this situation is not restricted to higher education. The worry is that it will DETER more poor people, because they know that Mummy and Daddy can't help them out, or bail them out if needed when they are starting out in life.

the real debt is in relation to the cost of living as a student for three years, that is where any deterence kicks in. This is also where having a family that can help gives you the leg up. Tuition fees in this context are an irrelevance as they are not payable if you are not earning over the threshold

the fees might be 2 times / 3 times higher, but the amount a student will borrow wont be.

consider a 3 year degree from last week, 3k fees + 4k living expenses = 7k/year = 21k.

(+ 3k overdraft + a hefty credit card bill = 25k total)

now consider a 3 year degree from today; 6k fees + 4k living expenses = 10k/year = 30k.

(+ 3k overdraft + a hefty credit card bill = 34k total)

34-25 = 9

9/25 = 36% increase in overall debt.

and it's the credit cards + overdraft fees that'll screw them.

a graduate at our place will be paid about 22k, they'll need to find about £150/month to pay off the overdraft, £75/month to clear the credit card, and £8/month* for the evil, crippling fees.

(*last week it was £58/month)

i've been thinking about this sort of thing, and i've changed my mind about graduate taxes, i think an actual tax would be the best solution to uni funding, but the new system is lots better than the old one.

the new system is lots better than the old one.

The only improvement is the increased threshold. In the amount borrowed, the interest charged and the differing fees at different unis it's worse.

Increased threshold AND shorter repayment period.

But actually, although I personally would be better off under the new system I still think it's rubbish.

The result that as a society we end up with shit loads of "thinkers" but a complete lack of "doers" - which is why we then have to ship all our manufacturing jobs to china, as jobs like that are "beneath" someone who's done a degree.

We shipped all our mass manufacturing to China because of cheap labour, not because people thought it was beneath them. Another idiot decision(like basing your economy on Finance and services) that will surely come back to bite us on the butt.

Anyway it was MrsT that kicked off the whole process of encouraging more people to get degree's(remember polytechnics?)for ideological reasons while at the same time decimating the manufacturing base.

We no longer have the sort of employment base to support all those who are now being discouraged from a university education by tuition fee's of any sort, you either have the "non-degree" jobs that immigrant workers are now doing or degree jobs that employers in the future may have trouble filling home grown talent.

Employers are not going to drop their standards and will more than likely import more degree educated people from abroad or ultimately move abroad as well educated personnel are vital for their business interests.

So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

Which is why we have the Chancellor we have.

you either have the "non-degree" jobs that immigrant workers are now doing or degree jobs that employers in the future may have trouble filling home grown talent.

In my day (I am 51) a lot of people went to work and studied by day release or similar to get qualifications - mine was in accountancy, no degree needed to get started. I started work at 17 and gained my qualifications some years later while earning money and paying into a pension etc.

I heard that university admissions has increased by 3 times in this time although TJ has suggested 10 times a couple of hours ago (5% to 50%). I do not know which is correct but a lot more young adults are now going into further education - is this really required? And someone has to pay for it hence the problem we now have.

Stuart Baggs did not go to Uni and he has done OK;-)

My cousin now lives in the USA and he is thinking of sending his 17 year old daughter to a UK university as it will be cheaper than than studying in the USA.

My daughter is 25 and it cost me £18k+ to put her through a 4 year law course, do not know how much her mother contributed. She still had a substantial debt at the end. (Never inquired as the level as she could 'not afford to eat' on the £35 a week I was giving her. Note I paid her rent, utilities, 2 x laptops etc so this was to feed herself)

Also agree with TJ regarding the difference over the years. My sister went to Bradford university in the late 1970's and she lived a lot less well then my daughters generation - not sure if that was a good thing or not.

Future students will not pay until the end of there education rather than up-front which is helpful to people from poorer families. We do need to train future generations but paying for it, and the balance between student and state is a difficult one.

blackhound - IIRC it was 5% went to uni of our parents generation (I am the same age as you)

I like how the Conservatives say "We must cut to get rid of the crippling deficit left to us, it is not fair to leave future generations with a massive debt."

There are people who can do any job. I don't regard non-degree jobs as menial, but the Average person in the UK has been told time and again by successive Governments, education, education, education, and as such actively encouraged to pursue university degrees and the jobs that require those degrees.

The result being that more jobs require degree's and there are less jobs around that don't. What I mean by less jobs are the engineering jobs, Science, manufacturing etc, because those jobs were almost discouraged...they didn't pay enough for the people and were out of kilter with the brave new finance and services world we were creating back in the 80's.

Most of the other jobs like construction, council contractors who do street sweeping, refuse collection etc, are being taken up by importing foreign labour, because we became more and more snobish about the jobs we do.

So having created this brave new world, this particular Government has set about destroying the very thing that an economy in the 21st century requires...as many educated people as possible.

You can have the finance/services based economy, or manufacturing based economy, or better still a mix of both, but what we may be getting is the economy that we have had for the last 25years with less of it's vital ingredient: degree educated people.

I came up with this brilliant idea a couple of weeks ago, but strangely din't get a lot of response from those in favour of tuition fees. I'll try again:

[b][i]How about, right; all those who think students should pay big fat fees, speshly those who went to uni before fees were introduced, as well as all Tory politicians past and present who are still alive, and all Tory Party and LimpDem supporters, members and politicians, pay the maximum that fees would cost were they to go to uni after such fee rises? You know, to show how they personally support the policies of their parties and politicians? You know, all those who benefitted from free university education themselves yet think it's ok to introduce fees for others?

Would raise a few quid, eh?

I assume the Tory Boys on here will be all voluntarily paying the £9000+ per year for their time at uni, as a protest against the current student protests. Y'know; kind of putting their money where their mouths are....

Anyone?[/i][/b]

Money where yer mouths are. Or, just shut up.

Blackhound - Member
In my day (I am 51)

TandemJeremy - Member
blackhound - IIRC it was 5% went to uni of our parents generation (I am the same age as you)

There you go TJ falsifying figures to suit your argument, or is that you've just forgotten again.
You were 49 this year one year older than me, next year you will be 50

TJ - thanks for clarifying that the 5% was our parents generation. I missed that.

Elfinsafety - your model does not work as countries change over time. I mean three years before I started work VAT was introduced which previous generations did not have to pay. In addition at that time income tax was around 33% and my first mortgage in 1980 was a 15% mortgage rate. Maybe we should go back to those policies as well!

We still have to 'buy' much the same things as a nation but it how we pay for it changes over time.

One of the interesting things is that although cuts are being made in many places pensioners so far do not seem to be effected. Is this because they vote? (I thought free bus passes would be amended in line with state pension as a start)